My favorite study/statistic that I heard on the radio (Dr. Drew on loveline) was that 97% of people with invasive piercings were sexually abused. This was about 6 years ago, so its probably not as high as piercings moved more mainstream.

Agree with what most everyone said, especially Corth and Oteb. What you don't seem to get is that very few positions with a company need a genius or even an intelligent person. What they need is someone who shows up, does their job, doesn't cause any problems (work personnel or otherwise) and is happy with their salary. What they don't need is someone who goes out of their way to showcase their personality with piercings, color and dress.

America is not weak because we discriminate against people who reject normal values. If anything, America is weak because you can't stand up or discriminate against people who reject normal values.

Look, what someone wears and how they present themselves says something about how they feel about themselves. A slob is likely to be a mess and not very efficient. Someone with lots of piercings is going to be a rebel and not follow rules and/or be a difficult person to manage. Someone with long hair doesn't care what others think about them and can't emphasize with others' feelings. Appearance is important because of its effect on others.

Now if you are some back office person that no one ever sees, then I guess it doesn't matter, although those are also the same folks that are first to get fired. The important folks are on the front line with a personal relationship with clients. You will usually see those folks dressed for the part. Little things can be corrected. Some of the younger folks that work for me will tell you one of my pet peeves is folks that don't wear the collar tab in their collars. Those are the little things that clients look for.

Sarvis I tottaly agree with you that general "looks" have no influence on work (bare apparent cases) what you are missing tho that we do not live in perfect world. Workers are not only viewed by their efficiency. A lot of other things influence how an employer conceives their workers and part of that is "looks". All that stuff like tattoos, piercings and the like will not harm your work but will harm your career. Simply the choice to look like rebel in this world will make it harder for you. I am not saying it should be like that but well it just is. People trust people that are similar to them. Its people that gauge you not computers.

Good lord Sarvis, Kwirl understands the whole "looking professional" while at a job interview, why dont you get it? Once you discover the dress code you can relax, depending on rules of the company.

Don't I recall YOU were interviewing people at some stage? Tell me you didnt base SOME of your decision on appearance ..

Gas station attendant applicants, dishwashers, tattoo artists .. all these positions it would be fine to *go as you are* .. any office job ANY office job would require business dress casual at the very least .. if you showed up in jeans, you'd never make it to the interviewer's office.

Ambar wrote:Good lord Sarvis, Kwirl understands the whole "looking professional" while at a job interview, why dont you get it?

Good lord Ambar, how many times do I have to say I wasn't talking about the interview stage?

Once you discover the dress code you can relax, depending on rules of the company.

For that matter, I regularly break the dress code rules at my company.

Don't I recall YOU were interviewing people at some stage? Tell me you didnt base SOME of your decision on appearance ..

Yes, I was. No, I didn't. 90% of it was based on the tests I gave them to see if they had any idea what they were talking about. None of them did... ALL of them were well dressed.

Gas station attendant applicants, dishwashers, tattoo artists .. all these positions it would be fine to *go as you are* .. any office job ANY office job would require business dress casual at the very least .. if you showed up in jeans, you'd never make it to the interviewer's office.

Did I ever say otherwise? I did mention a couple things that are a bit more permanent than a change of clothes. Tattoos should not be held against a person. What a person did one drunken night when they were 21 likely has no bearing on who they are at your job interview.

First impressions last, you only get one.

You only get one with most people. The kind who don't like to think, for instance.

people with multiple tattoos and piercings are a lot more likely to be recreational drug users than others

Yeah, and black people are more likely to be criminals, etc. Regardless of the truth of this statement, it is stereotyping and discrimination. Lucky for people who think like that, the people being discriminated against are often unable to afford to do anything about it, so it keeps happening.

I've got some good friends who are into ink and metal, and they don't do drugs. Where does that kind of thinking end? How do you 'define' the parameters of your type of logic?

Do you only avoid discriminating against minorities because it is currently socially 'unpopular' to publicly be racist? Do you put up with women because they fought for the right to be your equal? Would you avoid hiring a middle eastern man since that type of racism is currently 'trendy'? How do you decide and define who you can and can not discriminate against?

people with multiple tattoos and piercings are a lot more likely to be recreational drug users than others

Yeah, and black people are more likely to be criminals, etc. Regardless of the truth of this statement, it is stereotyping and discrimination. Lucky for people who think like that, the people being discriminated against are often unable to afford to do anything about it, so it keeps happening.

I've got some good friends who are into ink and metal, and they don't do drugs. Where does that kind of thinking end? How do you 'define' the parameters of your type of logic?

Do you only avoid discriminating against minorities because it is currently socially 'unpopular' to publicly be racist? Do you put up with women because they fought for the right to be your equal? Would you avoid hiring a middle eastern man since that type of racism is currently 'trendy'? How do you decide and define who you can and can not discriminate against?

Get off the high-horse. You discriminate and styerotype as well. You just cause a stink when it hurts you just like all the other "cry me a river" mentality driven whine-asses.

Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Ambar wrote:Does it bug anyone else when he dissects posts line by line, or should it just amuse me as I consider the source?

*pat Ambar*

It's funny, this is the ONLY place on the entire internet where people complain about replies like that. It's NORMAL for the rest of the world. (Actually it's worse on a site like Fark.com, where you don't have the quote tag. The different sections are broken up just by italics!)

At least I read what you write though, rather than constantly arguing against something you didn't say. You should try it sometime. Then maybe I wouldn't have to respond to your points.

Discriminate, prejudice. making value calls and decisions based on the information you have. There is nothing wrong with this, its something we all do and some of us should do more. Instead we are told not to discriminate. Look past that this guy looks like a thug, looks like he would be at home in prison, looks like he doesn't give a shit about what anyone thinks. Ignore it all in the name of equality and open mindedness.

If you are hiring for your average, no brains punch a ticket position, why do you need to take a chance on someone who looks like a wierdo? WHY? because he MIGHT be normal or even spectacular? Remember, you basically can't tell how an employee is going to perform... you are literally looking for a reason not to hire any specific candidate.

Get off the high-horse. You discriminate and styerotype as well. You just cause a stink when it hurts you just like all the other "cry me a river" mentality driven whine-asses.

Wow, defensive much? first off, stereotyping is something i admit freely to, but discrimination based on those stereotypes is a different matter. the purpose of my post, however, was to mention that while workplace discrimination with regards to sex and race required federal legislation (the 1963 Civil Rights Act) - just what will it take for discrimination based upon appearance to be 'phased out'. While Corth is right, people with tattoos and piercings ARE more likely to be drug or alcohol abusers, there are other indicators of illegal activities that can be identified by nothing more than visual observation.

I stand by my question, which is 'How do you determine which methods of discrimination to employ during a selective screening process of potential employees?'

Old people, young people. Black, white, asian, latin american, etc. Male, female. Liberal, conservative. Homesexual or heterosexual. Piercings and body art or straight edge. What lifestyle or genetically inherited traits are acceptable to use when choosing an employee?

kiryan wrote:Discriminate, prejudice. making value calls and decisions based on the information you have. There is nothing wrong with this, its something we all do and some of us should do more. Instead we are told not to discriminate. Look past that this guy looks like a thug, looks like he would be at home in prison, looks like he doesn't give a shit about what anyone thinks. Ignore it all in the name of equality and open mindedness.

If you are hiring for your average, no brains punch a ticket position, why do you need to take a chance on someone who looks like a wierdo? WHY? because he MIGHT be normal or even spectacular? Remember, you basically can't tell how an employee is going to perform... you are literally looking for a reason not to hire any specific candidate.

Kiryan, in your argument I'm curious. If you sit down to interview a potential employee, and your first impression is that 'this guy looks like a thug' - do you call of the interview, or at least give him the opportunity to answer your questions and put forth his position? I realize that you can often 'classify' someone at first look, which to be honest, I have only a moral problem with. But I believe the question of character is, when you give him the chance to speak - if he comes across as intelligent and articulate, with a clear demonstration of his experience and knowledge in the field and position for which you are hiring him, can you look past his appearance (assuming that he is 'cleaned up' for the interview, and not insulting you by not even making an overt effort to satisfy your standards') and give him at least a chance?

I'm sure there must be a study. That way we can get past stereotyping. I am willing to bet money that if such a study exists it would demonstrate that people with tattoos and/or multiple non-traditional piercings are more likely than other people of similar age, sex, race, etc., to be recreational drug users.

Having said all that, the situation has been handled, so this thread is pretty much at an end. -Kossuth

Get off the high-horse. You discriminate and styerotype as well. You just cause a stink when it hurts you just like all the other "cry me a river" mentality driven whine-asses.

Wow, defensive much? first off, stereotyping is something i admit freely to, but discrimination based on those stereotypes is a different matter. the purpose of my post, however, was to mention that while workplace discrimination with regards to sex and race required federal legislation (the 1963 Civil Rights Act) - just what will it take for discrimination based upon appearance to be 'phased out'. While Corth is right, people with tattoos and piercings ARE more likely to be drug or alcohol abusers, there are other indicators of illegal activities that can be identified by nothing more than visual observation.

I stand by my question, which is 'How do you determine which methods of discrimination to employ during a selective screening process of potential employees?'

Old people, young people. Black, white, asian, latin american, etc. Male, female. Liberal, conservative. Homesexual or heterosexual. Piercings and body art or straight edge. What lifestyle or genetically inherited traits are acceptable to use when choosing an employee?

Would you hire a man who was charged with but never convicted of molesting a child to run your daycare center? Would you hire an a felon convicted of armed robbery to man your telling station at the bank you run? Would you background check someone from afghanistan before hiring them to work with highly explosive chemicals at your factory? If you answered no to any of these, you are a moron.

There is a certain point where these things are common sense. It sucks, but that's the way it is. After the line between common sense and personal judgement, it does get grey; however, to say your judgements are better than mine because you're more PC than I am is a bit hypocritical. And this does not always indicate racism/sexim etc. I wouldn't hire a woman to fight fires. I just wouldn't. They aren't biologically near as qualified as a man is -- that's life. If the person that walks into my burning home while I'm on the edge of consciousness ends up being a woman who couldn't carry me if both of our lives depended on it (which it would), we are both pretty fucked. I would refuse to hire some punk-looking rebel in most business environment jobs because there will always be situations where my credibility and job could be on the line for doing so. It's survival. If they really wanted the job, they would look the part.

Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Corth wrote:I'm sure there must be a study. That way we can get past stereotyping. I am willing to bet money that if such a study exists it would demonstrate that people with tattoos and/or multiple non-traditional piercings are more likely than other people of similar age, sex, race, etc., to be recreational drug users.

Some other interesting statistics is that a positive attitude toward body adornment wassignificant among students who admitted to have used drugs and alcohol recreationally than those who did not use either with 42% drugs users versus 31% non-drug users, which was significant atthe .o1 level of testing. . The group was almost evenly divided over the issue of an employers rightno to hire someone 35.29% agreeing with the employers right not hire someone based on the use ofbody adornment and 35.87% feeling that employers did not have a right to hire or fire someonebased on such adornment. It is odd that 41.17% of those surveyed stated that they would not hirepeople with tattoos or piercing, other than women with pierced ears, despite the fact that 49.9% feltthat it was not legal to discriminate based upon body adornments.

heh, a statistical difference of 9% - funny, because 8.73% is the difference between those who would not hire based on that, versus the number who recognize it is illegal to do so, anyway. I wonder if 'So, I see you were fired for not hiring someone based on their appearance' is as bad in an interview as 'Hrmm, this guy has purple hair.'

Corth wrote:I'm sure there must be a study. That way we can get past stereotyping. I am willing to bet money that if such a study exists it would demonstrate that people with tattoos and/or multiple non-traditional piercings are more likely than other people of similar age, sex, race, etc., to be recreational drug users.

I wonder what you get if you cross reference people who went to college with people who have been recreational drug users.

Get off the high-horse. You discriminate and styerotype as well. You just cause a stink when it hurts you just like all the other "cry me a river" mentality driven whine-asses.

Wow, defensive much? first off, stereotyping is something i admit freely to, but discrimination based on those stereotypes is a different matter. the purpose of my post, however, was to mention that while workplace discrimination with regards to sex and race required federal legislation (the 1963 Civil Rights Act) - just what will it take for discrimination based upon appearance to be 'phased out'. While Corth is right, people with tattoos and piercings ARE more likely to be drug or alcohol abusers, there are other indicators of illegal activities that can be identified by nothing more than visual observation.

I stand by my question, which is 'How do you determine which methods of discrimination to employ during a selective screening process of potential employees?'

Old people, young people. Black, white, asian, latin american, etc. Male, female. Liberal, conservative. Homesexual or heterosexual. Piercings and body art or straight edge. What lifestyle or genetically inherited traits are acceptable to use when choosing an employee?

Would you hire a man who was charged with but never convicted of molesting a child to run your daycare center? Would you hire an a felon convicted of armed robbery to man your telling station at the bank you run? Would you background check someone from afghanistan before hiring them to work with highly explosive chemicals at your factory? If you answered no to any of these, you are a moron.

There is a certain point where these things are common sense. It sucks, but that's the way it is. After the line between common sense and personal judgement, it does get grey; however, to say your judgements are better than mine because you're more PC than I am is a bit hypocritical. And this does not always indicate racism/sexim etc. I wouldn't hire a woman to fight fires. I just wouldn't. They aren't biologically near as qualified as a man is -- that's life. If the person that walks into my burning home while I'm on the edge of consciousness ends up being a woman who couldn't carry me if both of our lives depended on it (which it would), we are both pretty fucked. I would refuse to hire some punk-looking rebel in most business environment jobs because there will always be situations where my credibility and job could be on the line for doing so. It's survival. If they really wanted the job, they would look the part.

Corth wrote:I'm sure there must be a study. That way we can get past stereotyping. I am willing to bet money that if such a study exists it would demonstrate that people with tattoos and/or multiple non-traditional piercings are more likely than other people of similar age, sex, race, etc., to be recreational drug users.

I wonder what you get if you cross reference people who went to college with people who have been recreational drug users.

However, the fact that college students, especially white ones, are much more likely to be drug and alcohol abusers than someone with tattoos or piercings is not the point. The point is, those white college kids look just like everyone else, so they must be ok. Abusing drugs and breaking the law isn't what matters, its the perception that someone who looks different must be doing something immoral. Keep in mind, even as recent as two years ago the catholic church was still debating whether people with tattoos or piercings were automatically condemned to hell or not.

I interview computer people. Technical positions, less on the customer service side.

I schedule an hour for an interview, I tell them its 20 minutes. I have a list of questions I ask every candidate to meet any definition of fair. If they are the best candidate so far, taking into account everything, then the interview continues.

I'm fair, but in an interview you're looking at personality and team fit. You are not worth potential disruptions to team dynamics no matter how skilled you are. You had better have the best damned personality I've ever seen and steady jobs if you walk into my interview with dime sized holes in your ears. I'm looking for a reason not to hire you.

discriminate- to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit; especially : to make a difference in treatment on a basis prohibited by law (as national origin, race, sex, religion, age, or disability

Tatoos, body piercing, dyed hair... It has nothing to do with discrimination. You weren't born with them. Doing that was your personal choice and I sure can and will judge you by choices you make. Don't go overboard with PC.

Get off the high-horse. You discriminate and styerotype as well. You just cause a stink when it hurts you just like all the other "cry me a river" mentality driven whine-asses.

Wow, defensive much? first off, stereotyping is something i admit freely to, but discrimination based on those stereotypes is a different matter. the purpose of my post, however, was to mention that while workplace discrimination with regards to sex and race required federal legislation (the 1963 Civil Rights Act) - just what will it take for discrimination based upon appearance to be 'phased out'. While Corth is right, people with tattoos and piercings ARE more likely to be drug or alcohol abusers, there are other indicators of illegal activities that can be identified by nothing more than visual observation.

I stand by my question, which is 'How do you determine which methods of discrimination to employ during a selective screening process of potential employees?'

Old people, young people. Black, white, asian, latin american, etc. Male, female. Liberal, conservative. Homesexual or heterosexual. Piercings and body art or straight edge. What lifestyle or genetically inherited traits are acceptable to use when choosing an employee?

Would you hire a man who was charged with but never convicted of molesting a child to run your daycare center? Would you hire an a felon convicted of armed robbery to man your telling station at the bank you run? Would you background check someone from afghanistan before hiring them to work with highly explosive chemicals at your factory? If you answered no to any of these, you are a moron.

There is a certain point where these things are common sense. It sucks, but that's the way it is. After the line between common sense and personal judgement, it does get grey; however, to say your judgements are better than mine because you're more PC than I am is a bit hypocritical. And this does not always indicate racism/sexim etc. I wouldn't hire a woman to fight fires. I just wouldn't. They aren't biologically near as qualified as a man is -- that's life. If the person that walks into my burning home while I'm on the edge of consciousness ends up being a woman who couldn't carry me if both of our lives depended on it (which it would), we are both pretty fucked. I would refuse to hire some punk-looking rebel in most business environment jobs because there will always be situations where my credibility and job could be on the line for doing so. It's survival. If they really wanted the job, they would look the part.

Way to strawman the argument. I'm sure you'd go far in professional debate.

Anyway, I wasn't drawing direct correlations between the two/three classes. I was, however, showing you an example of where discrimination plays an important part of safty in the workplace. Being as such, discrimination, is not inherently a bad idea. This is my point; take it or leave it. But don't throw some shit argument and think you've somehow "got me." Argue the merits, or don't reply. It's that simple.

In the case of tattoo/piercings, I would say the same thing as Kyrian in his last post. That is the amount of discrimination I would use. Just as I would not want a chomo watching kids at a daycare center, I would also not want someone who will disrupt the workplace in the case of the tattoo/piercing person. They are different degrees of liability, but the idea of discrimination with the ends of promoting a more favorable work environment is not wrong. As Oteb said, these things are personal choice. A black man doesn't ask to be black, but you do voluntarily get tattoos and cannon ball holes in your ears. You make the choice, you live with the consequences. If you didn't think of the consequences when you got the artwork done, you're even less qualified for the position.

As far as women firefighters. What you linked was a "study" based off of a questionaire. It is hardly empiricle since every respondant was biased towards their coworkers -- being women. That's like giving white people at the NAACP a questionaire about black people in the work place and then telling the white cashier at the corner liquor store in cabrini green that he has nothing to fear from his black neighbors because these people didn't think he should worry because they don't have to. Facts are facts. Women can't build muscle near to the extent as the average male -- not even close. And not many female bodybuilders go into firefighting -- they are bodybuilders. As I said, if I'm in a burning building, I sure as shit don't want a woman with something to prove trying to drag my ass out and getting us both killed.

That being said, I have multiple tattoos and a few piercings, but guess what. They are all places that will never be seen in a job interview. Why? Because when I got them, I was well aware that I wanted a career outside of a tattoo parlor, hot topic, or burger king. I planned them for years and got them when I was damn ready. Most people are very surprised when they find out I do have them.

Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

Corth wrote:I'm sure there must be a study. That way we can get past stereotyping. I am willing to bet money that if such a study exists it would demonstrate that people with tattoos and/or multiple non-traditional piercings are more likely than other people of similar age, sex, race, etc., to be recreational drug users.

I wonder what you get if you cross reference people who went to college with people who have been recreational drug users.

However, the fact that college students, especially white ones, are much more likely to be drug and alcohol abusers than someone with tattoos or piercings is not the point. The point is, those white college kids look just like everyone else, so they must be ok. Abusing drugs and breaking the law isn't what matters, its the perception that someone who looks different must be doing something immoral. Keep in mind, even as recent as two years ago the catholic church was still debating whether people with tattoos or piercings were automatically condemned to hell or not.

Link is broke. I have no idea what was there, but those first few lines are completely rediculous. White college kids look like everyone else? Do they look like you? Lets take this further. Do all kids with punk hair, tattoos, and piercings look alike? Sure do. What about all the black kids in the rap culture? Do they look just like everyone else? They sure do. Businessmen? Yup. Asians? Double Yup! (just joking). So, I guess by your logic everyone looks like everyone else, so they must be ok. Great argument. It's called culture. I'm sorry you have something against white college kids, but at least they had enough sense to get an education rather than squander their money. I think you need to stop projecting and realize that you only have yourself to blame here.

As far as your perception thing goes. Yeah, you're probably right. But those perceptions had to have come from somewhere. Every single person I know with a tattoo or piercing was at one point very heavily into drugs and alcohol -- myself included. Not every person I know w/o tat/piercings is the same way. If I had to guess in a line-up which person did or did not heavily use drugs at one point, I'd go straight to the tat/piercing people first, and you know what? I'd more than likely be right. And there's a reason for that. It's part of the culture and everyone knows it. You've branded yourself, rightly or wrongly, with that culture, just as I have. I was just smart enough to hide the shit.

Lastly, wtf does the catholic church have to do with any of this? Those people have been fucking up since the inception of the catholic faith. How long did it take them to apologize to the jews? Seriously, I really would like to know the purpose of that statement...

Fotex group-says 'Behold! penis!'

Kifle puts on his robe and wizard hat.

Thalidyrr tells you 'Yeah, you know, getting it like a jackhammer wears you out.'

It was a statistic on drug usage among college students in america. i see using analogies to make a point is only allowed if they are yours, whatever.

The point being made is that if Corth's statement about not hiring someone with ink or metal be cause they would be more likely to be drug addicts is an example of the standard way of thinking, then Kiryan's comment about drug usage among those with a college degree should hold some weight, as well. The link was a government drug and abuse demographic regarding drug abuse among college students.

If then, a college student is as or more likely than someone with ink and metal to be a drug abuser, then what is the actual rationale behind Corth's statement? I was inferring that it boils down to looks, as in - those college degree holders may be just as likely to be abusing drugs, but since they don't 'stand out' or differ from the societal 'norm' that it is accepted. However, there are a lot of letters and words here, I can't expect you to read them all so I apologize for not being more direct in my explanations for your benefit.

**Also, a point - I don't have a single tattoo, I've removed all my piercings, and my hair is blonde. Who do I blame for what? This isn't a debate about me as a person, you don't like me, we all get it. Move on with your life, I know I certainly don't care. This thread devolved into a discussion, or argument if you will, about the practice, morality, and purpose about hiring practices involving people with non-standard appearance. Thanks for joining the thread, feel free to read the posts.

The catholic church statement was an afterthought reflecting their *moral* perspective and treatment of people with ink and metal. As part of this discussion has touched on 'right and wrong' I felt it appropriate to throw a mention of a relevant subject into the pot. Feel free to exclude all the other words around it while you make your personal attacks on my ineptitude. I don't mind.

**Your previous post - Why should I expect to go far in a professional debate? It might be your aspiration, it is certainly not mine.

The 'got me' you are talking about was not in reference to the discrimination, it was about the female firefighter comment, I still maintain is wrong. If a person is not fit to be a firefighter, then by all means they should not be a firefighter, but to disclude someone from trying to become a firefighter based on their sex without regard to their personal merits or attributes is the very definition of discrimination, which is illegal, and about 50 years out of date.

I don't argue that women have to work harder to become a firefighter, but if a woman does work hard enough to meet the standards that we set for men then she damn well deserves it in my opinion. I was a firefighter for two years after high school, I remember the first few female firefighters I worked with. From what I remember, those women worked harder and more passionately than half the men I served with, and lucky for you, they don't show you the same form of antiquated disrespect when they put their life on the line to keep you and your family safe. Your expectations of firefighters are way off base. Have you seen a real firefighter, or do you just base your knowledge on made for tv movies and gay porn calendars? I'll bet you a hard working, athletic female in her mid twenties can do a hell of a lot more than that middle aged, overweight volunteer firefighter to save your ass.

oteb wrote:discriminate- to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit; especially : to make a difference in treatment on a basis prohibited by law (as national origin, race, sex, religion, age, or disability

Tatoos, body piercing, dyed hair... It has nothing to do with discrimination. You weren't born with them. Doing that was your personal choice and I sure can and will judge you by choices you make. Don't go overboard with PC.

You are right, Oteb. Legally, there are very few things that can protect someone who has ink or metal, and I don't have a problem with it. I think it is interesting, however, that while hiring practices don't protect those lifestyles, attempting to fire someone based on them is a different matter altogether. In the states where it is even legal to fire someone based on those criteria, they are still going to collect full unemployment benefits if you don't have a compelling argument about why their appearance wasn't welcomed into your establishment.

For the record, I don't support laws that force employers to disregard age, sex, race, etc in their hiring practice, but not because I believe they don't deserve employment. Rather, I'd like to think that one day people will be able to find a job based on their ability to do the job. Forcing people to hire 'x' number of minorities or females or senior citizens is just outright stupid. I don't care if they are a 50 year old multi-ethnical pre-op transvestite, if they can convince me that they can do the job then they can damn well have the job. For sales and customer relations, I realize that they have different standards and higher expectations, but if they can convince me that they can overcome the customer's hesitations and preconceived notions of what they are capable of based upon their looks, then again, may the best man win. Employment can, and should, be competitive, but some of the handicaps we place on people are just leftovers of social prejudices that need to be buried asap, in my opinion.

oteb wrote:discriminate- to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit; especially : to make a difference in treatment on a basis prohibited by law (as national origin, race, sex, religion, age, or disability

Tatoos, body piercing, dyed hair... It has nothing to do with discrimination. You weren't born with them. Doing that was your personal choice and I sure can and will judge you by choices you make. Don't go overboard with PC.

What does a decision you made when you were 18 have to do with your personal merit at 30?

Kifle wrote:As far as your perception thing goes. Yeah, you're probably right. But those perceptions had to have come from somewhere.

Yes, probably the same place as Santa Claus. Just because people believe things doesn't mean they're true.

Every single person I know with a tattoo or piercing was at one point very heavily into drugs and alcohol -- myself included.

Every single person I know who went to college was at one point very heavily into drugs and alcohol. (Myself actually not included... and I kind of regret that anyway.)

See, that was the point before. You're rejecting people with tattoos because they probably (at least in your mind) used drugs in the past, but I've little doubt you ONLY hire people with college diplomas who ALSO used drugs in the past.

Clearly the drug use itself isn't an issue. Why does it matter if someone looks like they used to use drugs?

Sarvis, yes, I read your posts, that's why I didn't stick with just the interview process.

It's not all about stereotyping, no matter how people want to label it. If you have two people who are equal in everything required for a position, the one who is willing to follow the rules and go to extra lengths is going to be the one who gets farther. If you break one rule, you are more likely to break other rules, and that's not considered to be professional behavior.

As for your argument about which types of customer service need to dress, and which don't, there are exceptions to every rule. It is not unusual for companies to invite guests into their working area, and it behooves everybody in the company to maintain a clean and orderly appearance, no matter how you dress. I started in a call-center environment with the organization I work for. My position did not require me to see our clients face-to-face. More than once, however, the needs of a particular job I was doing would bring one of our clients to our main office, and I would meet them in the lobby to assist them. It wasn't part of my job or my duties, but I happen to like getting that gainsharing check once a year, and by going the extra length to dress professionally and do the extra it took to get the job done, I was ensuring customer loyalty and satisfaction, shoring up my job security in tough times, and helping to bring the organization I work for up to my standards of customer service, which creates pride in the job and is part of the circle of job satisfaction.

If there is a dress code and somebody breaks it regularly, they are disrespecting the organization and their peers. When times get tough and employers don't have such an ample potential employee pool to draw from, or are considering lay-offs, every edge counts. When there's somebody out there just as qualified and wants the job more, and are willing to show they want the job that much more by going the extra lengths to dress professionally, then what is the incentive to keep an employee who breaks the rules regularly, flaunts the rule-breaking, and is making a statement with the way they dress that they really don't want to put forth the effort for that organization?

It's not just about how you look. It's also about your commitment and willingness to support what you do.

Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

It's not all about stereotyping, no matter how people want to label it. If you have two people who are equal in everything required for a position, the one who is willing to follow the rules and go to extra lengths is going to be the one who gets farther. If you break one rule, you are more likely to break other rules, and that's not considered to be professional behavior.

What's funny is that in my office, the people who flaunt rules like the dress code are ALSO the ones most willing to go to extra lengths.

It might be why we get away with it.

If there is a dress code and somebody breaks it regularly, they are disrespecting the organization and their peers.

Or they just think dress codes are silly, and that their actual work should be considered more important. At least, that's what I think. Plus I've never found a comfortable pair of dress shoes.

When times get tough and employers don't have such an ample potential employee pool to draw from, or are considering lay-offs, every edge counts. When there's somebody out there just as qualified and wants the job more, and are willing to show they want the job that much more by going the extra lengths to dress professionally, then what is the incentive to keep an employee who breaks the rules regularly, flaunts the rule-breaking, and is making a statement with the way they dress that they really don't want to put forth the effort for that organization?

It's not just about how you look. It's also about your commitment and willingness to support what you do.

I think the fact that I have overtime on every single paycheck shows what effort I want to put forth for the organization.

oteb wrote:discriminate- to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit; especially : to make a difference in treatment on a basis prohibited by law (as national origin, race, sex, religion, age, or disability

Tatoos, body piercing, dyed hair... It has nothing to do with discrimination. You weren't born with them. Doing that was your personal choice and I sure can and will judge you by choices you make. Don't go overboard with PC.

What does a decision you made when you were 18 have to do with your personal merit at 30?

It depends on a person. But I know for certain that when I look at somebody, I'm not planning to ask them just when they got their decorations done. You see the decorations, you have a response. The response to most ink or metal is to expect that they're not as congenial as an unmarked person.

Sure in an interview you can go past that, talk to a person, find out that the markings were done twelve years ago on a drunken frat dare. But you don't want to have to have people who will be interacting with this person read a dossier on them to dispel assumptions that come as part of society. We look at certain things in a negative light, and if a prospective employee will cast a negative light upon your business why would you hire them?

Oh and just doing everything that I'm told. Black and white much? In this real world, if I feel something is silly, or out of place, I look to address it. See about changing it maybe. That's a grade above disregard, just to clear it up for you Sarvis.

Now excuse me while I go foster some war and genocide. Is there anything else you believe I've said that I should add to my agenda? I'm going back to my world where the sky is blue, your sky was a very fascinating colour during this brief excursion.

Oh and just doing everything that I'm told. Black and white much? In this real world, if I feel something is silly, or out of place, I look to address it. See about changing it maybe. That's a grade above disregard, just to clear it up for you Sarvis.

Now excuse me while I go foster some war and genocide. Is there anything else you believe I've said that I should add to my agenda? I'm going back to my world where the sky is blue, your sky was a very fascinating colour during this brief excursion.

I never said anything about fostering. But hey, if you want to be a hypocrite I guess putting words in my mouth is the way to go.

I'm sure LOTS of soldiers bring up a complaint to their commanding officer just before wiping out everyone in the village though. It's a grade above just not murdering people, after all.

oteb wrote:discriminate- to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit; especially : to make a difference in treatment on a basis prohibited by law (as national origin, race, sex, religion, age, or disability

Tatoos, body piercing, dyed hair... It has nothing to do with discrimination. You weren't born with them. Doing that was your personal choice and I sure can and will judge you by choices you make. Don't go overboard with PC.

What does a decision you made when you were 18 have to do with your personal merit at 30?

Sarvis on the same note you can say what does your decision to to kill someone when you're 18 have to do with your personal merit at 30? I understand that getting a tattoo or piercing isn't the same as killing someone so don't go down that road please.

Also here's something to think about. If you're 18 and decide to get a piercing, you have 12 years between then and 30 to take the piercing out. If you got a tattoo somewhere that a business shirt can't cover it then yeah yer screwed unless you pay to get it removed.

The bottom line is the business world is still majorly ruled by stuffy white business men who don't feel like they need to put up with "punks" as they see them. So when people hire they hire people that can deal with the stuffy white business men.

You drew a direct corellation between 'mindlessly doing as one is told' and 'leading to war and genocide'. Sure you didn't say fostering. You just implied it.

I really have no interest in discussing what options a soldier has when they disagree with an order. I'm not military, I'll never be military, and the most I know about military is what I'd see in a movie. Eg: Nothing at all. I would imagine though, that a soldier who just decides not to get out of bed at 5 because they feel the morning routine is silly is in for a pretty short career. I'm using an example a little >closer< to disregarding a company's dress code incidentally, I know you didn't say anything about morning routines.

The one thing that occurs to me Sarvis, is that you're a fierce proponent of judging people as people. The problem is that you're trying to factor out one aspect of humanity; our judgement, our first impression, in favour of a checklist of credentials. It's a very logical approach that would appear to disregard entirely the personality of a person, in favour of a cold determination of their capabilities.

Oh and just doing everything that I'm told. Black and white much? In this real world, if I feel something is silly, or out of place, I look to address it. See about changing it maybe. That's a grade above disregard, just to clear it up for you Sarvis.

Now excuse me while I go foster some war and genocide. Is there anything else you believe I've said that I should add to my agenda? I'm going back to my world where the sky is blue, your sky was a very fascinating colour during this brief excursion.

I never said anything about fostering. But hey, if you want to be a hypocrite I guess putting words in my mouth is the way to go.

I'm sure LOTS of soldiers bring up a complaint to their commanding officer just before wiping out everyone in the village though. It's a grade above just not murdering people, after all.

There's a huge thick line between that and not following "silly" rules. Nuremberg trials taught us that people are held accountable for their actions. However you can't really compare killing people because you're told to to lets say wearing dress shoes or not wearing a dress that barely covers your ass or wearing torn jeans or whatever the dress code is for your company.

Discrimination is selectively regulated by the federal, state, and local governments. It is furthermore selectively discouraged by American society.

But the key word here is selectively. Discrimination is not something inherently evil or wrong, but rather, it is a tool that can be used for a proper purpose or abused.

Banks must discriminate among household income groups when creating loan products.Arguably, had they done a better job at this type of discrimination, banks would be in a slightly better position, as would our economy.

Bathroom providers must discriminate among genders to provide safe environments for their patrons.There are obvious reasons why most bathrooms in the developed world are unisex. I will not argue this point and present this purely to make a point.

Its always the ones who are doing the atypical that demand the rest of us accept them based on their inner beauty and their equality. The rules are already clearly defined, but there are always those of you that push them or butt up right against them. It takes a certain attitude to want to be right on the edge of tolerable or be beyond it and argue that the rest of us must accept it.

That attitude is exactly why I wouldn't hire you unless I was bent over a barrel or had very specific circumstances where I needed someone like you and you were cheap. You are literally trading money for others to overlook your personal habits btw.

When you engage in these types of behaviors, you are putting your personal life and attitude on display for any discerning person. You can argue it all you want, but that is what we all see. We see your need to be different and draw attention. We see your indifference and rebellion to cultural norms/rules. We see you're self esteem issues and everything else. These are not things we need in a professional operation (with some exception).

I could explain the psychology of it to you, but you'd just rip me on how it doesn't apply to you and how you are different. YOU ARE NOT DIFFERENT OR UNIQUE. you just aren't. This is especially true for you Kwirl.

kiryan wrote:Its always the ones who are doing the atypical that demand the rest of us accept them based on their inner beauty and their equality. The rules are already clearly defined, but there are always those of you that push them or butt up right against them. It takes a certain attitude to want to be right on the edge of tolerable or be beyond it and argue that the rest of us must accept it.

That attitude is exactly why I wouldn't hire you unless I was bent over a barrel or had very specific circumstances where I needed someone like you and you were cheap. You are literally trading money for others to overlook your personal habits.

When you engage in these types of behaviors, you are putting your personal life and attitude on display for any discerning person. You can argue it all you want, but that is what we all see. We see your need to be different and draw attention. We see your indifference and rebellion to cultural norms/rules. We see you're self esteem issues and everything else.

I could explain the psychology of it to you, but you'd just rip me on how it doesn't apply to you and how you are different. YOU ARE NOT DIFFERENT OR UNIQUE. you just aren't. This is especially true for you Kwirl.

lol, now you're noble. not only should I accept wierdos and their weirdo ideas. I should worship them because of all the change they are responsible for. we can achieve social change without you. we have independent thinkers who can drive the innovations of tomorrow. Weirdos don't have a monopoly on ideas or equality, just monopolies on cutting their d**k in half and spearing their face with more metal than a hybrid.

As a matter of fact, I really don't think you guys do much by throwing your philosophies in our face... other than galvanizing the opposition by picking a fight and delaying change.

I seriously can't wait for polygamy rights, the day we can't eat meat because of cow rights and when we can't cut down trees because of the world's eco rights.

kiryan wrote:lol, now you're noble. not only should I accept wierdos and their weirdo ideas. I should worship them because of all the change they are responsible for. we can achieve social change without you. we have independent thinkers who can drive the innovations of tomorrow. Weirdos don't have a monopoly on ideas or equality, just monopolies on cutting their d**k in half and spearing their face with more metal than a hybrid.

As a matter of fact, I really don't think you guys do much by throwing your philosophies in our face... other than galvanizing the opposition by picking a fight and delaying change.

I seriously can't wait for polygamy rights, the day we can't eat meat because of cow rights and when we can't cut down trees because of the world's eco rights.

Yes, TONS of innovation comes from people who make sure they wear their collar tabs. Not from people like Albert Einstein who didn't bother with haircuts. Nope. Only conformists contribute to society. Anyone who thinks or acts differently should just be shot to save time.

Ashiwi wrote:If there is a dress code and somebody breaks it regularly, they are disrespecting the organization and their peers.

Or they just think dress codes are silly, and that their actual work should be considered more important. At least, that's what I think. Plus I've never found a comfortable pair of dress shoes.

And there you go, you just made the point, yourself. The guidelines that have been set out for you in order to get or maintain a position within the organization are "silly" to you, which is what you tell your management and peers very loudly every time you disregard them. What this says loud and clear is that if you don't like the rules, you won't follow them. While there are exceptions to the rule, and the organization you are in may very well be one, the general rule is that if an employee will do this in one situation, he is generally more likely to do this in other situations. An attitude like this is a liability in many organizations, because it impacts every aspect of business, including ethics.

What employers tend to prefer in an employee is not one who flaunts their rule-breaking, but one who will abide by the guidelines, even if they disagree with them, while working toward a positive change.

The people who accomplish greatness in this world aren't the ones who break minor rules and have excuses ready for why they do... they're the ones who really go out on a limb, striving to make significant changes in the world, struggling against the odds, often suffering for their own beliefs in order to make an impact that will create an atmosphere for social inspiration or upheaval. I hope you're not comparing your refusal to wear business attire because you can't find the perfect pair of shoes with the lives of Socrates, Rosa Parks, Joan De'Arc, or any of the others throughout history who annoyed the pee out of people around them in order to follow their beliefs. In order to justify the whole 'people who break away from the norm are the ones who really make a difference' schtick, you have to be striving toward actually making a difference, not indulging yourself with passive aggression.

Gormal tells you 'im a dwarven onion'Gormal tells you 'always another beer-soaked layer'

Ashiwi wrote:If there is a dress code and somebody breaks it regularly, they are disrespecting the organization and their peers.

Or they just think dress codes are silly, and that their actual work should be considered more important. At least, that's what I think. Plus I've never found a comfortable pair of dress shoes.

And there you go, you just made the point, yourself. The guidelines that have been set out for you in order to get or maintain a position within the organization are "silly" to you, which is what you tell your management and peers very loudly every time you disregard them. What this says loud and clear is that if you don't like the rules, you won't follow them. While there are exceptions to the rule, and the organization you are in may very well be one, the general rule is that if an employee will do this in one situation, he is generally more likely to do this in other situations. An attitude like this is a liability in many organizations, because it impacts every aspect of business, including ethics.

What employers tend to prefer in an employee is not one who flaunts their rule-breaking, but one who will abide by the guidelines, even if they disagree with them, while working toward a positive change.

The people who accomplish greatness in this world aren't the ones who break minor rules and have excuses ready for why they do... they're the ones who really go out on a limb, striving to make significant changes in the world, struggling against the odds, often suffering for their own beliefs in order to make an impact that will create an atmosphere for social inspiration or upheaval. I hope you're not comparing your refusal to wear business attire because you can't find the perfect pair of shoes with the lives of Socrates, Rosa Parks, Joan De'Arc, or any of the others throughout history who annoyed the pee out of people around them in order to follow their beliefs. In order to justify the whole 'people who break away from the norm are the ones who really make a difference' schtick, you have to be striving toward actually making a difference, not indulging yourself with passive aggression.

Wait, did you just use Rosa Parks as an example of someone who accomplished social change without breaking the rules? Because... well, I'm pretty sure she broke the rules to get her point across. Exactly what I'm talking about, really.